Re: EOCred: Addressing requirements from use cases

Hey Phil,

The CCG is an incubation group where spec drafts get created as well as prototypes and thought pieces. Suggestions from this group will be suggested to the VCWG. The VCWG is for paid members only whereas the CCG is open and free. Many members of the VCWG are also members of the CCG.

From my perspective, you are correct in how you’ve distinguished the differences between CCG and EOCred. That said, if the CCG is using Open Badges which is more than just an assertion, then the description, criteria, etc (badge class / issuer profile properties) will likely be discussed as well. 

One of the topics that will likely be discussed in CCG is adding an issuer profile property to the assertion directly rather than only referenced in the badge class as the credential creator is not always the credential issuer.  This could add separation from the verifiable aspect and the description aspect. I’m keen on this btw.

The description has value without an assertion. Credentials may not be digital for instance but still be findable in a registry like the CER. But digital credential assertions are nearly reliant on a description. 

K



> On Jan 11, 2018, at 3:55 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hello Kerri, and thank you for raising this. It's really useful to have members of other community groups working in the same area.
> 
> My feeling, and I think the work items on the pages you link to confirm this, is that broadly speaking the W3C CCG is concerned about an individual showing that they have acquired a credential. The EOCred group is concerned about organizations showing the credentials they offer. Or to put it in OpenBadge terms, CCG is more concerned about the Assertion part of a credential. It's good to have both. Of course, another difference is that the EOCred CG is primarily concerned with the role of schema.org in describing credentials.
> Quick question: what is the relationship between the Credentials Community Group and the W3C Verifiable Claims Working Group <https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/WG/>?
> 
> Regards, Phil
> 
> On 10/01/18 21:22, Kerri Lemoie wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> I think it maybe helpful to know that the Credentials Community Group that is working on verifiable credentials is aiming to work on educational credentials (Open Badges) this year. 
>> 
>> More info on the community group: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/ <https://w3c-ccg.github.io/>
>> 
>> We are working on the proposal here: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/educational_verifiable_claims/blob/master/README.md <https://github.com/w3c-ccg/educational_verifiable_claims/blob/master/README.md>
>> 
>> One early suggestion is to include “occupational" in the naming of this work like we are in this group. I strongly suspect our use cases will be very similar and aligning the two community groups will be productive. 
>> 
>> As Phil notes, the eocred schema is similar to the intention of what is called the Badge Class and Issuer Profile in Open Badges. Yet, I would suggest that the CER is a far richer data set than the properties of the Badge Class/Issuer Profile. My opinion is that the two can co-exist within a verifiable credential with the assertion referencing either or both. 
>> 
>> Does considering this change the perspective on CreativeWork? 
>> 
>> My two cents: While I agree with Phil that credentials don’t exist unless someone creates them, designs them, etc… it also seems like an odd fit to include credentials with art, photographs, books, etc.... It doesn’t quite seem to fit as a “Creative”. Yet, since Course is considered a CreativeWork (which seems similarly odd to me), then somehow it does seem appropriate.  
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Kerri
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 10, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/01/18 17:40, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> To my mind, a Credential could be described as the statement of a set of criteria [academic and/or experience, attendance, participation, validation, membership, etc.] that the awarder/assigner asserts/agrees that the recipient of the Credential  has met.    As such I don’t see it as being a CreativeWork. 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I stick by what I said earlier: Credentials don't exist unless someone creates them. Someone has to design them, i.e. specify the competences or other eligibility criteria. Once a credential has been described, i.e. given a name, a description, and the bundle of eligibility criteria has been specified, then you have Creative Work, taking wikipedia's definition "a manifestation of creative effort". 
>>> 
>>> One useful distinction is that between an EducationalOccupationalCredential which is offered by some credentialling organization, and the claim by an individual to have such a credential.  A well-established parallel for this is OpenBadges <https://openbadges.org/>, which have a Badge class <https://www.imsglobal.org/sites/default/files/Badges/OBv2p0/index.html#BadgeClass> and an Assertion <https://www.imsglobal.org/sites/default/files/Badges/OBv2p0/index.html#Assertion>. The Badge Class is "a collection of information about the accomplishment recognized by the Open Badge". Again, "a collection of information" sounds like a CreativeWork to me. 
>>> 
>>> I would not want to mix up the information that is in things like a Badge Class with assertions that they have been met. This, incidently, one reason why I worry about modelling EOCredential as a subtype of credential: I am not sure if the existing practice and understanding of Credentials in Education and work place development matches that from other domains.
>>> 
>>> Phil
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. http://people.pjjk.net/phil <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>
>>> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk/>: technology to enhance learning; information systems for education.
>>> CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology.
>>> 
>>> PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company, number SC569282.
>>> CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in England number OC399090
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. http://people.pjjk.net/phil <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>
> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk/>: technology to enhance learning; information systems for education.
> CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology.
> 
> PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company, number SC569282.
> CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in England number OC399090
>